![]() It didn't work properly and had to be fixed. The Roche case offers some encouragement: Brown said that the company started working on its new test last month, and finished the work in six weeks."Įven the CDC, which has hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D spend at their disposal, had problems with their coronavirus test at first. We don't believe CODX has the resources to create a test that quickly, that bigger diagnostic firms like Roche have spent a much longer time refining their coronavirus test to make sure it works well. Its R&D spend is only about $1.5M per year. Their revenues have been well below $100K per year. CODX will discuss in this upcoming webinar how: "innovative design algorithms and a close partnership with a critical component supplier, LGC, Biosearch Technologies, enabled assay design and verification in seven days, making the COVID-19 test available for market."ĬODX is a tiny company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. It might have been better for them to take their time and test their test and fix all the bugs before releasing it. We went from having the sequence, to ordering the test, to finding and verifying, to having a working test in seven days.īypassing the "trial and error" stage that Featherstone mentions in the above quote has been a big mistake for CODX in our opinion. That's what we order, and it saves weeks of time, we can do that in 10 minutes.ĬODX suppliers brought in tests after only a few days, normally it takes 7-14 days. So they go from software which takes about 5 minutes to design the primers, to an algorithm that takes 5 minutes to give the very best, the optimized set. So the people in the lab took all the results that they've developed over the past couple of years, and developed an algorithm. We can't take days, weeks, or months to respond, it has to be immediate. But when doing trial and error and talking about COVID-19, you don't have time for that. ![]() And that was CODX's process up until a couple of weeks ago. Up until a few weeks ago, there's a trial and error that goes through with the test. Joseph Featherstone, the head of business development for CODX, stated in a presentation on YouTube from 3/6/20: The WHO's director-general says the coronavirus is "a unique virus with unique characteristics." It has proven to be a challenging task to create an effective diagnostic test for it. Evidence suggests that one week isn't enough time for any medical diagnostic firm to create an efficient coronavirus test. ![]() In our opinion, this is a strong sign that the test is ineffective. CODX created their coronavirus test in only one week.From doing further research, we believe the following are strong signs that suggest this test is ineffective. New Strong Signs That Co-Diagnostics' Coronavirus Test Is IneffectiveĬODX's coronavirus test kit is called the Logix Smart Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) Test Kit, described on the CODX website here. We have found more evidence that its device is likely not effective and we reiterate our $1 price target. Now that the stock price has appreciated significantly, we decided to give CODX another look. Note that those investors who shorted CODX and held their position when we published our first report may have taken heavy losses and may have gotten stopped out. On 2/18/20, we published a bearish article on Co-Diagnostics ( NASDAQ: CODX) titled: Co-Diagnostics Coronavirus Test Is Likely Ineffective - $1 Price Target. Egan on Apand is headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT.Editor's note: This article was updated on 3/17 in response to reader inquiries. It offers design services, vector control, equipment, diagnostic, and research solutions. engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of diagnostics technology. For more information check our how to buy Co-Diagnostics, Inc. stock price prediction is currently bullish. ![]() stock price is currently $ 1.150000 with a total market cap valuation of $ 35.17M ( 30.58M shares outstanding).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |